On April 3, the Higher Education Ministry announced it would host a town hall session regarding the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA). The two-hour gathering took place on April 6.
A town hall is often called by top management, politicians, and senior leadership to hear employees’ or the community’s views on pressing issues.
From a political perspective, the most successful town halls are engaging, inspiring, and rally people to support political initiatives and national goals.
In the context of UUCA, the town hall was obviously the ministry’s initiative to rally support behind amending certain aspects of the Act, but mostly to gather support for its firm decision not to repeal it.
Town halls, also known as all-hands meetings, are gatherings where the “team” can hear news, discuss challenges, stay informed, and offer ideas.
It is also a time to build relationships with people you may not work closely with. It is the best way to bring everyone together to discuss misunderstandings maturely, and transparently.
On April 6, the ministry and top university officials were present to inform and “educate” lecturers and students about UUCA. However, from the perspective of student leaders, this so-called official “informative” group is becoming increasingly difficult to work with.
From the ministry’s perspective, its idea for a town hall was a magnanimous gesture. Apparently, we must all be grateful that it organised this “meet the people” open and frank discussion.
In the minds of the ministry leadership and university “top brass”, UUCA stakeholders have been confused for too long about the Act’s basic provisions and subsequent amendments over the years.
Students and politics
Furthermore, the ministry is supposedly very concerned about students’ intellectual development. The town hall was to remind them of what their role at the university is.
Students were reminded they should not waste too much time on UUCA because their main purpose is to study, get good grades, and be gainfully employed after graduation. They should not be too concerned about on- and off-campus politics because it would be too distracting.
Hence, the ministry and its town hall initiative would clear all this up.
The letter of invitation to the session clearly stated the objectives of the initiative. The first paragraph stated that it was meant to “memberi kefahaman” (explain) and “menyampaikan informasi terkini” (update on the latest information) about the UUCA.
The implication from the get-go is that the ministry intends to clarify all misunderstandings about the Act from its perspective.
In other words, the town hall was meant to educate students and other disgruntled parties. It was meant, supposedly, to “de-confuse” those who refuse to accept the reality that the UUCA is higher education’s “free gift and best friend”.
The letter also mentioned, in a “by-the-way” manner, that an added reason for the town hall was to discuss the future direction of the UUCA “pasca pindaan” (after amendments).
As such, many among the list of invitees were optimistic, that the discussions would convey good news regarding concrete future amendments to student political activities on and off campus.
They were also looking forward to discussing other provisions of autonomy. These include the unnecessary university bureaucracy, the unjust hierarchical chain of command, and the rigid financial control that oversees student organisations and activities.
The theme of the UUCA is solidly linked to how universities are heavily politicised. Conceptually and practically, our public universities are fundamentally not autonomous.
Beating around the bush
The consistent rhetoric is that universities have their autonomy and separate legislation, such as Act 605, which renders them a legally autonomous governing body.
The town hall blatantly skirted any discussion about this. For example, key officials avoided any discussion on the appointment of public university vice-chancellors.
The ministry successfully avoided an open and frank discussion on how top administrative appointments in our public universities have been tightly controlled by politicians and the ministry.
It is now apparent that the primary purpose of the town hall was to be a “talk down” session. Decorated with several moments of dripping condescension, the speeches and several comments from the ministry officials and top university administration were dismissive of student concerns.
The session was meant to indoctrinate and intimidate. Sure, there were question and answer sessions, but students’ questions were mostly deflected and went unanswered.
Furthermore, most students were spoken to as if they were five-year-olds, politely but interspersed with cajoling, hints of childish coaxing, and pretentious encouragement to be “brave and speak your mind”.
The condescension was mind-boggling, not to mention that it was directed mostly at the eloquent female students.
The few academics who did speak up spewed the usual superficial, safe comments and inconsequential rhetoric, completely oblivious to what the students were highlighting.
The town hall was a terrible disappointment and a huge waste of time. It was an unsatisfying gathering of two groups who spoke “at and across” each other.
Get reform rolling
There has been decades-long talk about higher education reform. It is time all Malaysians move any discussion on this to a conceptual level. What needs reform or revamping has everything to do with the bigger picture of nation building.
For example, does providing funding automatically permit the funder to legislate on draconian and oppressive terms? Does the funder not understand the purpose of a public university, and the basic human right to be literate and educated?
The concept of a public university is based on the fundamental human right to education. Just like health, the public has a right to good quality education.
It is cruel to use the UUCA to dominate young minds, and in the process suggest something like: “you should be grateful you have access to public education… we give you all the opportunities, so you have no choice but to accept how we control you”.
This is unjust, dehumanising, and very un-Malaysia Madani. - Mkini
SHARIFAH MUNIRAH ALATAS is a retired academician with zero tolerance for corrupt, arrogant, and frivolous leadership.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.